Nike to Pull out of Golf Equipment Market

First topic message reminder :

Though deserved a thread of its own

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36971507

No clubs, balls and bags anymore but continuing to make apparel.


Some thoughts so far;

SmithersJones wrote:Excuse the golf talk but Nike have announced they're pulling out of the golf equipment business. Wonder if Rory will be playing his old Titleist clubs and more pertinently his old Scotty next time out?

GPB wrote:Nike getting out the Golf Equipment business.  Will still manufacture clothing including shoes.

sirbenson wrote:The Tiger Woods affect....Charl Schwartzel's mid season move of brand makes sense now, apparently Mcilroy was practicing last week with a Scotty Cameron putter

With Nike and Adidas leaving the golf market what does it say about the game?  

Will the Nike players be loving that they can use different equipment now?

How many majors would Tiger have won if he could have used the proV1?    :whistle:  

I doubt a Scotty will help Rory too much.


Steiny on Tiger

Steiny wrote:"Clearly he and I need to be thinking about a change on the hard goods side," Steinberg told GolfChannel.com via phone. "He and I have discussed at length the plan for that, and feel comfortable with what we're going to do going forward. But clearly, there's likely to be a change."

"He's been a longtime icon of Nike Golf and that's not going to change one ounce. He'll remain a loyal and enthusiastic icon of Nike."

Mizuno golf touting for business

‏@Golf_Mizuno wrote:@TigerWoods @McIlroyRory @BKoepka @Kevin_Chappell @JhonattanVegas @russhenleygolf @themichellewie --Team Mizuno now holding open tryouts

Super

Up until he made the fried chicken comment I was pretty ambivalent towards sergio, he seemed a little petulant but nothing more. It was the incident that caused me to dislike Sergio, not the other way around.

I will ask this again as maybe it was lost in a long post.

How do you usually decide if a racist comment was made and whether or not the person had sufficient knowledge to attribute intent to what they said?

Well, then it doesn't sound like you are being reasonable as you are making a decision based on no evidence at all and only on your own imagination and opinion as to whether Sergio ought to have known.

He might have known, he might not, but you haven't got the information to make that decision.

How do I know if something is racist? Well, the term "fried chicken" is one that I was unaware of, it's not one that's part of Spanish vernacular and I wasn't aware of Zoellers comments. So, on that basis, I couldn't say for certain whether it was made with intent.
There are many phrases which are clearly known, to anyone from Europe who doesn't live in America, "fried chicken" wouldn't be part of phrases that many of us would know to have racist connotations. You seem to think everyone ought to know about that, based on what exactly?

For example, it might well be that an American wouldn't be aware of the "p" word as having racial connotations. If an American said it to describe someone of Pakistani origin, could you say for certain whether they knew the racial slur attached to it? Of course you couldn't. So on that basis, you have no grounds for claiming that Sergio WOULD know that "fried chicken" was racist.

It doesn't matter how I know if something is racist, if Sergio was unaware, he was unaware, it's not his fault if he didn't know. Besides, he made a statement stating that he hadn't intended for it to be taken that way.

AS always, it is the intent that matters. The "p" word was fine for many years and was just simply a shortening of pakistani in the same way we use Aussie, Brit, Rusky etc. I don't think anyone takes offence at Aussie or Brit, but the "p" work has taken on different connotations. It's all the way it's used. My personal opinion is that if someone uses it simply as a shortening of the longer variant then fine

It is when it is used derogatorily that is the problem.

Meanings of words and phrases change over time, with political correctness fads

I recall being taken to task by someone in the very early days of this this forum (or it may have been the old BBC forum) - for using the word "coloured". Now when I used that word, I actually considered it carefully before using it and (at that time) I was led to believe that this was more PC than "black" - it seemed people disagreed and informed me that "black" was now acceptable and "coloured" wasn't. In prior years it had been the other way around.

So yes, sometimes people can say things mistakenly without any offence intended - but there will always be someone who thinks they know better

And Mac is that person, not only does he know the meaning of every single phrase in the world, he knows how people are applying it, despite knowing nothing about them. Amazing.

Can you make fun of black people for "black traits" without being a racist? Yes of course you can.

super_realist wrote:And Mac is that person, not only does he know the meaning of every single phrase in the world, he knows how people are applying it, despite knowing nothing about them. Amazing.

Maybe there is a god, and his name is mac?

Following this thread I thought that Mac probably understood he had messed up and was desperately trying (and failing) to squirm out of it. Now on reflection it seems to me that he just doesn't get it, his head well and truly buried in the sand.

Let me try one more time: Mac / Sergio (could be the same person), it's possible that none, one or both of you are racist. We don't know. However, you need to apply a consistent interpretation of both comments. I would consider both comments very similar in terms of mentioning behaviour associated with racial stereotypes of black people. Therefore if you perceive one comment to be racist you must also perceive the other comment to be racist as well.

pedro wrote:Can you make fun of black people for "black traits" without being a racist? Yes of course you can.

But there's a good chance that a guy wearing a hoodie will beat you to death with the leftovers* from his bucket of Fried Chicken.

* He's not going to hit you with a full bucket is he? Apparently dey love dat sh!t...or something. I dunno, better ask a white guy, they know a lot about black people apparently.

Hmmm, "racist" and "racial stereotypes"? If you use racial stereotypes does that make you a racist? What if it can be scientifically backed (which I guess it can) that black people eat more fried chicken than whites? Or that blacks have longer willies than whites? Does that make you racist? If I joke that I'll invite a Japanese for sushi does that make me racist? Do blacks need to be handled with velvet gloves because we (=the guardianista's / PC army) assume they have lower IQ and thus make bad food choices per se and we need to feel pity? Or is it because the common history with whites makes them special? If blacks are continuously treated as victims of circumstance they will remain victims of circumstance.

OK; I'm off to KFC...

I wonder if Mac would like to tell us conclusively if Ellen Degeneris's comment was racist or not

DAVE667 wrote:

pedro wrote:Can you make fun of black people for "black traits" without being a racist? Yes of course you can.

But there's a good chance that a guy wearing a hoodie will beat you to death with the leftovers* from his bucket of Fried Chicken.

* He's not going to hit you with a full bucket is he? Apparently dey love dat sh!t...or something. I dunno, better ask a white guy, they know a lot about black people apparently.

That's just the pot calling the kettle black.

Pedro

Even if you could "scientifically" establish that black people in the US ate more fried chicken the underlying derogatory nature of that terms usage would still exist. The stereotype can be both true and racist due to the usage of the words over time.


Davie

I have never claimed that I could interpret all claims of racism, only that I know for sure white people using "fried chicken" towards black people in America is a racist action. So why don't you ask someone who might be impacted by her tweet what they think?

McLaren wrote:only that I know for sure white people using "fried chicken" towards black people in America is a racist action.  

There it is again ... confusing opinions with facts

Davie

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/heres-why-your-fried-chicken-and-watermelon-lunch-racist/357814/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/03/mtv-decoded-fried-chicken_n_7498150.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/05/22/186087397/where-did-that-fried-chicken-stereotype-come-from

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/12/how-watermelons-became-a-racist-trope/383529/

Or just google it there is loads out there.

To make it really simple just watch this video.




Fact or opinion?

Mac, you are an absolute moron. The fact that it might be considered racist by some and the fact that there is stuff on google saying that it is, does not mean that everyone should or does know about that.


That's the problem you have in your argument. It isn't common knowledge. Bravo in citing MTV as an authority though. Could you stoop any lower?

I'm getting really bored with this discussion - can we change the subject and then I might join in!

If you aren't interested LP, don't comment, but don't ask people to button it just because you might not be interested.

I've lived in very multi cultural areas of London most of my life, and walk past KFC or even more so Chicken Cottage and you'll see the fried chicken stereotype confirmed.

But water melon? I've never seen black people hanging around the green grocer's eating water melon! Must be a US thing.

So things are only racist because some people think they are... Hmm.

Haven't had KFC for ages, maybe 10 years. All this chicken talk is making me want to get some tonight.

Although does that make me racist? Or black?

And recycling is an issue today. What do I do with the greasy box after I've put my bone in it?

raycastleunited wrote: What do I do with the greasy box after I've put my bone in it?

Ask her what she likes...

I'll get my coat.

raycastleunited wrote:What do I do with the greasy box after I've put my bone in it?

Don't knock it, I bet super has had his todger in many a chicken dish.

pedro wrote:So things are only racist because some people think they are... Hmm.

When did anyone say that? Never. What people are saying is that you can innocently say something and not be aware that it is racist. You only need to look at the preposterous over-reaction to the Ellen De'Generes meme to see how people are going looking for the excuse to call someone on racism.

super_realist wrote:

pedro wrote:So things are only racist because some people think they are... Hmm.

When did anyone say that? Never. What people are saying is that you can innocently say something and not be aware that it is racist. You only need to look at the preposterous over-reaction to the Ellen De'Generes meme to see how people are going looking for the excuse to call someone on racism.

Well that's the same isn't it? It's not cut in stone which things are "racist". In most cases it's peoples perception of it that defines whether things are racist or not. And two people may have different perceptions. So it's often highly subjective.

Hang on though, what if you are offended by offense like super? He is constantly offended by people taking offence he feels they should not be offended by. So you're saying supers perception of offence is so offensive as to offend?

What is for sure is that Super is the most offended person who doesn't get offended.

Have Nike actually stopped manufacturing equipment while we've been having this "What is racist/not racist discourse" or has our debate not lasted as long as I thought? :-p

Nike have stopped and restarted again since this conversation started.

Just think how many chickens have been killed, fried and eaten since this conversation started

Chubby Chandler is on the most recent golf digest podcast and he said he was surprised it took so long for Nike to withdraw from the equipment market. He pretty much echoed my now infamous post where I suggested that as long as Rory and Tiger (or others) were dressed head to toe in Nike they would add to the overall brand image regardless of what clubs were in the bag.

Essentially he said nike will continue to use golfers as marketing tools without the trouble of having to compete in the ball and club market.

McLaren wrote:...Essentially he said nike will continue to use golfers as marketing tools without the trouble of having to compete in the ball and club market.

Probably a good decision if that's their rationale. Plenty of evidence that people will buy stuff if their favourite 'star' is using/wearing it even if the aforementioned stuff is pretty poor.

McLaren wrote:Chubby Chandler is on the most recent golf digest

What? Fried Chicken?

McLaren wrote:What is for sure is that Super is the most offended person who doesn't get offended.

I'm not offended by anything, but I do admit to being flabbergasted at what people find offensive.

Your tirades seem a little more than flabbergasted, maybe some underlying issues?

Not really, just don't understand how so many people can be so stupid.

Super, how often do you think people wonder that about you?

Not nearly as much as they wonder that about you Mac.

You do seem to have issues super realist.

Just an observation.

If I want the services of an amateur psychoanalyst, I'll ask. Thanks.

You should go and ask someone for help jack.

Why? What qualifies you for knowing whether I need help or not, you don't know me at all.

Super, we might not know "you", but we know super_realist and if there is any overlap between the two then you do appear to have some issues.

Mac, someone's online persona is completely different from how they are in real life.
You don't even know what "issues" are. You simply think because I'm different to you that there must be something wrong. Guess what, we're different people with different personalities. Doesn't mean either of us have "issues", just means we are different, thank goodness.

Super by issues I mean your narcissism/inflated sense of your own abilities.

I don't have inflated sense of my own abilities. I have high abilities in many aspects and other areas where I am less successful. It's demonstrable. I don't have to inflate anything.

Is your personality down to your lowly achievements, and if so, what does that say about your "issues", does that mean you lack confidence because you are too embarrassed to reveal what you work as, don't earn much and travel by bus?

I would say my low achievements are probably down to my personality, not the other way around.


As well as the narcissism you seem to be a very angry individual who doesn't seem able to take joy from the things most people do. I wonder if this is down to your advancing years with still no prospect of finding a sexual partner that will put up with your massively inflated ego.

I'm not angry Mac, I'm just opinionated,, blunt and forthright. Sometimes when reading other peoples posts it's difficult to get the context and manner in which it is being said. I think that probably happens with you and you interpret wrongly that I'm angry, rather than simply outspoken.

What do I not take joy from that others do? You have no idea about my sex life, you are just going on about what you may have insinuated from the past.

Seems like you haven't even bothered to look up narcissism.

A good 90% of your posts you seem to be negative.
You seem to want to throw childish insults to people.
You feel there is a need to do that a lot.
You do seem angry.

That was my point.

Don't see any other posters that post the same way as you.
Also don't get this online persona different to how you are outside 606.

I do feel you are very comfortable hiding behind 606 with some of the things you say.
Would you say the stuff to people's faces. I'm not so sure.
But we will never know I guess.


How I am on here is how I am in general.

Super

As westi says above there is a level of negativity about your posts that is rather wearing. I cannot recall you ever having a positive thing to say about the topics discussed on here.

And there's an arrogant, patronising, myopic, simpering level of liberal ninnying, route one insistence that you know better than everyone and that no one can tell you anything to your posts, but I won't hold it against you. It is who you are, and it is why you are different to other people. Carry on, stop moaning.

If you don't like the manner of my posts, fine, don't engage with me. Ignore everything I say and worry about whatever it is keeps you up at night.